cryptodegen8888

@Jeremybtc Now she wear a hijab, thats why the FBI cant find her. 🤣

A woman stole $4 billion, boarded a plane, and disappeared. The FBI still can’t find her. > Her name is Ruja Ignatova. She called herself the Cryptoqueen. > In 2014 she founded OneCoin and told the world it would kill Bitcoin. > She filled arenas. Wembley. Dubai. Thousands of investors cheering. > Behind the scenes she called her own investors “idiots” in private emails. > OneCoin had no blockchain. No real value. The price was set internally by the company. > By 2017 she had taken over $4 billion from investors across 175 countries. > On October 12, 2017 she was secretly indicted in New York. > Two weeks later she boarded a Ryanair flight from Sofia to Athens. > She never arrived at her destination. > Her brother took over the operation and later pleaded guilty to fraud. > The FBI added her to the Ten Most Wanted list in 2022. > They raised the reward for her arrest to $5 million in 2024. > A police informant claims she was murdered on a yacht in the Ionian Sea in 2018 and her body thrown overboard. > The FBI says they still believe she is alive. $4 billion gone. 175 countries defrauded. 7 years later nobody knows if she’s dead or sipping cocktails somewhere

@bon_g memecoin days are over. it’s time for cultcoins

it’s simple. make locking mandatory. trust is what’s broken and that’s what’s causing this endless PVP and ceiling. it’s just game theory here. they’re not bad guys, they’re rational guys. i wrote about this awhile back, a total of 5 articles — breaking down the psychology and mastermind behind all these.

@trencher69x Yes i‘m still waiting

7uAmvNnyXduFuwtbe8aNdwSKvKCDh4qhRYANpPXPpump $agm Waiting on that god candle fr

Ddaaammmmnn!

@trencher69x Still waiting…

GAXXSfgYKzqbXQT1hhCLGxvFZHGye4V1bVtiG1AQpump $rush

@traderInosuke $lock In

Low market cap. Massive potential. What’s the ticker?

@CoinMarketCap $lock In

Holding or trading?

@dogeofficialceo Lock In!

Gm to any retard still in crypto ❤️

@Darky1k Lock In:

Better times will come to crypto This is not the end

@4futurenas Lock In!

In and $HOLD ING

@vexthrhustler Lock in!

repeat after me we love gake solana better

@tige_sol Lock In!

@streamlockfun $lock In!

Everyone says they’re diamond hands and will hodl to 1B. If your conviction is so strong, lock it up.

@tige_sol Hold is a very big Problem! Next time try launch on $streamlockfun!

Oke Friends. Whats new about paying dex at 5-9k MC????????????????????????????????? Did is misses some stuff?

@LvckUwU @Logan_Smith526 Why all post of him are gone???? Fake?

An X user (@Logan_Smith526 ) is blowing up right now for correctly predicting Queen Elizabeth’s death Not only this, but he predicted that King Charles would on March 18th in the same post. Today is March 18th. X suspended his account and erased all his tweets and now he’s back with a bio saying it’s King Charles death day Grok has confirmed this as true and politicians like @BernieSanders are making ominous tweets about rallying for there to be “no more kings” This is possibly the biggest front run ever and (if true), this proves Logan is some time of government insider puppeteering these moves behind the scenes I’m leaving dev fees on in case Logan wants me to transfer them to him

@Wabibi @pmarca Time is Money!

III. The Specific Structure of the AGI Unemployment Argument and Where It Goes Wrong The AGI catastrophist argument typically runs like this: 1.AGI will be capable of performing any cognitive task a human can perform. 2.Cognitive tasks constitute the majority of employment in advanced economies. 3.Therefore, AGI will be able to replace the majority of workers. 4.Therefore, mass permanent unemployment follows. Step 3 to Step 4 is where the lump of labor fallacy smuggles itself in. The argument assumes that the quantity of cognitive work to be done is fixed, such that when AGI does it, humans are left with nothing. But this is precisely what is not true, for all four channels described above. Let me be more specific about how each gap in the argument fails: Gap A: “AGI can do the task” ≠ “There is no more task to do” When spreadsheets replaced bookkeepers in the 1980s, they did not reduce the total amount of financial analysis done in the American economy. They increased it, massively, because the cost of analysis fell, which meant more analysis got demanded, which meant more analysts got hired — to do more complex, higher-value analysis that the spreadsheets enabled. Automation of the low end of a cognitive spectrum does not eliminate work in that domain; it shifts the frontier of what human effort gets applied to upward. AGI will do the same thing. If AGI can draft a competent first-pass legal brief in 30 seconds, law firms won’t employ zero lawyers. They’ll employ lawyers who review, refine, strategize, negotiate, argue in court, build client relationships, exercise judgment in novel situations — and they’ll take on far more cases per lawyer because the cost per case has fallen. Total legal work done in the economy will increase, not decrease, because more people will be able to afford it. Gap B: The Argument Ignores Price Effects on Demand The catastrophist framing treats the displacement of workers as a pure subtraction problem. But displaced workers who find new jobs (as they historically do) are also consumers. The productivity gains from AGI don’t disappear into a void — they show up as lower prices, higher real wages, or both. Higher real purchasing power means more consumption of more goods and services, which means more demand for labor to produce them. Furthermore, the catastrophist argument generally ignores what happens to the profits generated by AGI-driven productivity. Those profits go to shareholders, who spend and invest them, creating demand elsewhere. Or they get competed away in product markets, lowering prices and raising real consumer purchasing power. Either pathway generates demand for labor. The only scenario where this mechanism fails is one where the gains from AGI are so concentrated and the distribution so pathologically skewed that effective aggregate demand collapses — which is a political economy problem (a distributional problem solvable through tax policy and redistribution) rather than a fundamental unemployment problem caused by the technology itself.